Leaders of all three main political parties in Southamptons say they won't be 'bribed' into supporting fluoridation (From Daily Echo)

Good do not let them freely poison the population!

Yes fluoride is poison and dangerous!

would you force people to smoke against their will?
This is no different!

How many of said Councillors, who are unanimous in their wish to 'improve children's dental health' ensured that their own children brushed only with fluoride free toothpaste?

And no, taskforce, fluoride is neither poisonous nor dangerous- we are talking about a naturally occuring mineral, and we are not talking about 'adding' it as such but merely increasing the levels. Presumably the anti- lobby would all vote for distilling drinking water to remove this 'harmful additive' at huge public expense.

I've always found the best way of preventing dental problems is to clean your teeth daily.

Goldenwight wrote:
How many of said Councillors, who are unanimous in their wish to 'improve children's dental health' ensured that their own children brushed only with fluoride free toothpaste? And no, taskforce, fluoride is neither poisonous nor dangerous- we are talking about a naturally occuring mineral, and we are not talking about 'adding' it as such but merely increasing the levels. Presumably the anti- lobby would all vote for distilling drinking water to remove this 'harmful additive' at huge public expense.

Excuse me? An unelected body of people are trying to freely tamper with my water supply? That is not democratic and I refuse to allow them to do this.

We don't need to be mass-medicated against our will - people need to sit up and take better care of their teeth and not expect everything handed to them on a plate.

If this is forced upon the city - then all those people objecting to it should take mass legal action against those personally responsible for implementing it.

It is disgraceful and should be outlawed. You want to drink this medicated water? Feel free! I don't thank-you very much!

How many people asked for salt to be idiosed? How many people asked for public drinking water to be chlorinated and filtered to have contaminants removed? I am a trained biochemist and I have read a great deal of the research behind water fluoridation and it is totally harmless. Fluorosis is a *known8 condition and the way in which it occurs, right down to sub-clinical dose is extremely well characterised and avoided by the limiting of the water addition to minute quantities. If you read the uninformed opinion of alarmist groups instead of unbiased research, then it will tell you all kinds of faslehoods and misinterpretations of research (e.g. research which gives high doses of fluoride to lab animals to gauge what the toxic effects are at extremely high doses - studies which have also been carried out for essential nutrients I might add). Increasing the fluoride content of the water by the levels suggested will not lead to an increase in fluorosis, cause the public's intelligence to be affected or cause brittle bones (all outcomes suggested by non-scientific campaign groups), but it will lead to a marked improvement in local dental health. I agree that it is better to eat less sugar, brush more often etc.. but the fact remains that not everyone adheres to this, so in light of that unfortunate fact, we have a harmless way of reducing overall drops in dental health, but it is being blocked by ignorance - pure and simple.

I am guessing I will be rebuked, but unless any of you can back up your objections with proper research, then I don't consider your objections valid. Science observes and seeks to understand the natural world by empirical analysis and reasoned interpretation of the results, not by saying "so and so reckons.." and just choosing the most emotionally gratifying hypothesis to rally behind, e.g. "stop poisoning our water".

All these so called party leaders are not exactly famous for their flexible principles or reliability, this sound bite is opportunism due to forthcoming elections in May
.
Most of Southampton councillors originally supported adding this poisonous fluoride to our drinking water
.
Majority of these opportunist councillors apart from many members of New Labour were forced to vote against putting poison in our water by the sheer weight of public pressure against this Hitlarian idea
.
In all fairness in second round most of the Tories flexed under the weight of well organised campaign, mainly led by Greens who deserve real credit
.
Sadly many so called Labour Councillors shamelessly displayed their typical arrogance and ignored the concern of citizens by voting for compulsory/forced medication; in this case adding fluoride to our drinking water
.
Nationally although before the general election Tories made some nice sounding sound bites against adding fluoride at their national conference but now their appointed wrecker of NHS Andrew Lansley appear to be doing the typical trick, which has become the hall mark of our disgraceful political class i.e. ‘U-TURN’ by saying that councils would be in line for bonuses if they improve measures ‘SUCH AS DENTAL HEALTH’
.
Greens and other anti fluoride campaigners should keep up the pressure by continuing with their popular campaign, put pressure not only against the political class but also start putting bit of heat under water companies, so they are forced not to enter into any contracts with arrogant, out of touch with public concern and unelected SHA

Condor Man wrote:
I've always found the best way of preventing dental problems is to clean your teeth daily.

Other alternative could be to turn up at some decent trade unionists picket line and tell them that you are full time mouth piece of Cllr.Smith...
....................
....
There won't be any teeth to worry about after that!!!!!

wr0ng1 wrote:
How many people asked for salt to be idiosed? How many people asked for public drinking water to be chlorinated and filtered to have contaminants removed? I am a trained biochemist and I have read a great deal of the research behind water fluoridation and it is totally harmless. Fluorosis is a *known8 condition and the way in which it occurs, right down to sub-clinical dose is extremely well characterised and avoided by the limiting of the water addition to minute quantities. If you read the uninformed opinion of alarmist groups instead of unbiased research, then it will tell you all kinds of faslehoods and misinterpretations of research (e.g. research which gives high doses of fluoride to lab animals to gauge what the toxic effects are at extremely high doses - studies which have also been carried out for essential nutrients I might add). Increasing the fluoride content of the water by the levels suggested will not lead to an increase in fluorosis, cause the public's intelligence to be affected or cause brittle bones (all outcomes suggested by non-scientific campaign groups), but it will lead to a marked improvement in local dental health. I agree that it is better to eat less sugar, brush more often etc.. but the fact remains that not everyone adheres to this, so in light of that unfortunate fact, we have a harmless way of reducing overall drops in dental health, but it is being blocked by ignorance - pure and simple. I am guessing I will be rebuked, but unless any of you can back up your objections with proper research, then I don't consider your objections valid. Science observes and seeks to understand the natural world by empirical analysis and reasoned interpretation of the results, not by saying "so and so reckons.." and just choosing the most emotionally gratifying hypothesis to rally behind, e.g. "stop poisoning our water".

A few things to consider:

1. The general global trend is to avoid or stop water fluoridation schemes. Why do you go against this trend by suggesting fluoridation is 'completely harmless' ?
2. Water fluoridation involves treating water using fluoride sourced from industrial waste that is known to include small quantities of known poisons, such as arsenic. Are you saying now that arsenic is 'completely harmless' ?
3. Fluoride is only effective when applied topically - I.e. when applied directly to the tooth surface. Hence brushing teeth makes sense, whereas merely drinking fluoridated water is not nearly so effective.
4. I took my information from a scientific
expert on water fluoridation- Dr Paul Connett. Are you aware of him and, if so, what don't you agree with him about fluoridation and why?

As well as the suggestion to put pressure on the water companies, what about the idea of putting pressure on the SCSHA?

What would be good to know is who is responsible there for aggressively pushing on with their fluoridation agenda despite lack of council and public support. Do those people have links with industry and receive any incentives or kickback payments if fluoridation goes ahead?

Fluoridation of our water is a goverment plan to dumb its nations, want to know the real reason why they want this..... Fluoridation, actuctaly lowers you IQ ! Thjats what the government want ever heard of Illuminati ??? DO YOUR RESEARCH.... its all part of there plan to 'Dumb' the masses.......

Fluoridation of our water is a goverment plan to dumb its nations, want to know the real reason why they want this..... Fluoridation, actuctaly lowers you IQ ! Thjats what the government want ever heard of Illuminati ??? DO YOUR RESEARCH.... its all part of there plan to 'Dumb' the masses.......

No_Fuss wrote:
Fluoridation of our water is a goverment plan to dumb its nations, want to know the real reason why they want this..... Fluoridation, actuctaly lowers you IQ ! Thjats what the government want ever heard of Illuminati ??? DO YOUR RESEARCH.... its all part of there plan to 'Dumb' the masses.......

I see from your post that there plan is thusfar working without the need for flouridation.

One would think that the proponents of fluoridation would insist on using only a clean pharmaceutical grade fluoride with no contaminants. Actually, the fluoride used is an industrial toxic waste fluoride (Hexafluorosilicic acid) which cures nothing and heals nothing and has never been tested or approved by FDA (in the USA) as safe and effective for human ingestion. It contains contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, radium, and much more. It is no wonder it reduces IQ in children and damages health.

Read the truth produced in the best scientific information on fluoridation here: (www.fluoridealert.o
rg). You will see a petition signed by almost 4000 professionals, including hundreds of dentists, hundreds of doctors, and other medical researchers calling on governments everywhere to stop fluoridation.

There are many large scientific studies there to show that drinking fluoridated water has no positive effect on cavity reduction and to show that it causes cancer, thyroid damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and other health problems.

*their

One would think that the proponents of fluoridation would insist on using only a clean pharmaceutical grade fluoride with no contaminants. Actually, the fluoride used is an industrial toxic waste fluoride (Hexafluorosilicic acid) which cures nothing and heals nothing and has never been tested or approved by FDA (in the USA) as safe and effective for human ingestion. It contains contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, radium, and much more. It is no wonder it reduces IQ in children and damages health.

Read the truth produced in the best scientific information on fluoridation here: (www.fluoridealert.o
rg). You will see a petition signed by almost 4000 professionals, including hundreds of dentists, hundreds of doctors, and other medical researchers calling on governments everywhere to stop fluoridation.

There are many large scientific studies there to show that drinking fluoridated water has no positive effect on cavity reduction and to show that it causes cancer, thyroid damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and other health problems.

One would think that the proponents of fluoridation would insist on using only a clean pharmaceutical grade fluoride with no contaminants. Actually, the fluoride used is an industrial toxic waste fluoride (Hexafluorosilicic acid) which cures nothing and heals nothing and has never been tested or approved by FDA (in the USA) as safe and effective for human ingestion. It contains contaminants of lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, radium, and much more. It is no wonder it reduces IQ in children and damages health.

Read the truth produced in the best scientific information on fluoridation here: (www.fluoridealert.o
rg). You will see a petition signed by almost 4000 professionals, including hundreds of dentists, hundreds of doctors, and other medical researchers calling on governments everywhere to stop fluoridation.

There are many large scientific studies there to show that drinking fluoridated water has no positive effect on cavity reduction and to show that it causes cancer, thyroid damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ and other health problems.

Problem is that there no proven evidence to suggest that adding fluoride to drinking water improves dental health.
Try asking the SHA for the hard evidence - it's all circumstantial

Well what a load of old bunny! my kids spend the first 7-9 years of their life in Kingston. The water was flouridated as was their toothpaste and still is. Between them they have three fillings. I was born in the 1940's when there was no flouride in anything. I cleaned and do clean my teeth twice a day. I have a filling or crown on almost every tooth and their mother also has several fillings. The difference is flouridation. As both my kids are currently at university, are noth academically engaged and undertaking all social and sporting activities I would suspect that flouride has only done them good. So leptonboy and the rest of you, look at hard evidence provided by scientists. I am not interested on opinions in this matter. If you eat too many chips in one sitting you may choke to death. Should we ban chips therfore? No. So grow up Southampton! And tell your politicians to "man or woman up"!

If it is so safe, why have the authorities put in their policy a full guarantee protection from prosecution, if they say its safe they do not need to hide from prosecution if found wanting. I assume they have something to hide.

If it is so safe, why have the authorities put in their policy a full guarantee protection from prosecution, if they say its safe they do not need to hide from prosecution if found wanting. I assume they have something to hide.

dango wrote:

No_Fuss wrote:
Fluoridation of our water is a goverment plan to dumb its nations, want to know the real reason why they want this..... Fluoridation, actuctaly lowers you IQ ! Thjats what the government want ever heard of Illuminati ??? DO YOUR RESEARCH.... its all part of there plan to 'Dumb' the masses.......

I see from your post that there plan is thusfar working without the need for flouridation.

LOL I see your point, mobile phones and fat fingers, texting.......lol still I think you understand my point....COYR

dango wrote:

No_Fuss wrote:
Fluoridation of our water is a goverment plan to dumb its nations, want to know the real reason why they want this..... Fluoridation, actuctaly lowers you IQ ! Thjats what the government want ever heard of Illuminati ??? DO YOUR RESEARCH.... its all part of there plan to 'Dumb' the masses.......

I see from your post that there plan is thusfar working without the need for flouridation.

LOL I see your point, mobile phones and fat fingers, texting.......lol still I think you understand my point....by the way what time you coming home for Tea...? Your Dad has sett up the choo choo train in your bed room when you get back from work.....see you soon dear....

Chas O'Bursledon wrote:
Well what a load of old bunny! my kids spend the first 7-9 years of their life in Kingston. The water was flouridated as was their toothpaste and still is. Between them they have three fillings. I was born in the 1940's when there was no flouride in anything. I cleaned and do clean my teeth twice a day. I have a filling or crown on almost every tooth and their mother also has several fillings. The difference is flouridation. As both my kids are currently at university, are noth academically engaged and undertaking all social and sporting activities I would suspect that flouride has only done them good. So leptonboy and the rest of you, look at hard evidence provided by scientists. I am not interested on opinions in this matter. If you eat too many chips in one sitting you may choke to death. Should we ban chips therfore? No. So grow up Southampton! And tell your politicians to "man or woman up"!

Anecdotal 'evidence' from one family is not a statistically significant sample size, I think you will agree.

No_Fuss wrote:

dango wrote:

No_Fuss wrote:
Fluoridation of our water is a goverment plan to dumb its nations, want to know the real reason why they want this..... Fluoridation, actuctaly lowers you IQ ! Thjats what the government want ever heard of Illuminati ??? DO YOUR RESEARCH.... its all part of there plan to 'Dumb' the masses.......

I see from your post that there plan is thusfar working without the need for flouridation.

LOL I see your point, mobile phones and fat fingers, texting.......lol still I think you understand my point....by the way what time you coming home for Tea...? Your Dad has sett up the choo choo train in your bed room when you get back from work.....see you soon dear....

Rather than leap on to conspiracy theories, why not consider another possibility: that the proper environmentally friendly method of disposal of toxic industrial waste (hexafluorosilicic acid) costs money?

So rather than have to pay for the disposal of this toxic industrial waste, perhaps industry has just got 'smart' and, instead of paying for its disposal, they get paid by water companies/'health' authorities for using it for fluoridation, even though it contains poisons like arsenic, lead, cadmium and other heavy metals?

SaintM wrote:
If it is so safe, why have the authorities put in their policy a full guarantee protection from prosecution, if they say its safe they do not need to hide from prosecution if found wanting. I assume they have something to hide.

Indeed.

Do you have a link to this policy?

It might seem expected that they would try to protect themselves against future poisoning/health claims of fluoridation, but I would be surprised if they could successfully indemnify themselves against the known toxic effects of arsenic, lead, cadmium and other heavy metals found in industrial fluoride - aka Hexafluorosilicic acid:

Fluoridation Chemicals Have Not Been Safety Tested - Here's the Proof:
http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/f-testing.h
tm

The indemnity from prosecution was in their literature. I was thinking of doing the same with my business.

Instead of the Councillors saying they won't be supporting fluoride being added to drinking water, I'd rather see them saying they'll be actively fighting it! Especially if they want votes in future Council elections!

Instead of the Councillors saying they won't be supporting fluoride being added to drinking water, I'd rather see them saying they'll be actively fighting it! Especially if they want votes in future Council elections!

SaintM wrote:
The indemnity from prosecution was in their literature. I was thinking of doing the same with my business.

LOL :)

Could you provide a link to this literature or, if not, do you know the title of it? This will help with locating the text to see what it says. I will post an excerpt from the text here if I can find it.

Perhaps we can indemnify ourselves against paying our water bill unless they can provide water without added fluoride, arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury etc? If everyone did this, the water company would soon drop this as it would be impossible to imprison everybody that refused, and they are shareholder-run companies, so loss of profits hits investors in the wallet.

The other possibility would be a class-action lawsuit against SCSHA, but this option would probably require lots of cash... any knowledgeable legal person here able to enlighten?

To my knowledge, in the UK fluoride supplements are classed as a prescription drug, meaning that you cannot purchase without a prescription. So when did it become legal to add a presciption drug to people's drinking water?

Taskforce 141 wrote:
Good do not let them freely poison the population!

Yes fluoride is poison and dangerous!

would you force people to smoke against their will?
This is no different!

It might help fatties lose weight.

"1. The general global trend is to avoid or stop water fluoridation schemes. Why do you go against this trend by suggesting fluoridation is 'completely harmless' ?"

This is a logical fallacy called appeal to the majority. It would be like saying (for example) there are more muslims than christians, therefore islam is correct (I don't know that there are, it's just an example).

The research shows that the concentration of fluoride in drinking water and the proposed slight increase are non-toxic and have no observable side-effects. There ARE observable effects from fluoride at far higher doses (orders of magnitude higher), but the same goes for vitamin D, table salt, selenium - a variety of things.

"2. Water fluoridation involves treating water using fluoride sourced from industrial waste that is known to include small quantities of known poisons, such as arsenic. Are you saying now that arsenic is 'completely harmless' ?"

Please provide some kind of evidence that this is the case and I will certainly take a look. If this is indeed the case, then I can not imagine it will pass. I myself have to pass research techniques through ethical and safety screening and believe me when I say that no one wants accidental poisoning to potentially come back on them.

"3. Fluoride is only effective when applied topically - I.e. when applied directly to the tooth surface. Hence brushing teeth makes sense, whereas merely drinking fluoridated water is not nearly so effective."

I am pretty sure that teeth reside in the mouth, which, last time I checked, is the best orifice to use for water ingestion. Also, the gums are very blood vessel rich, so it would follow that any systemic dose would also reach the base of the tooth enamel.

"4. I took my information from a scientific
expert on water fluoridation- Dr Paul Connett. Are you aware of him and, if so, what don't you agree with him about fluoridation and why?"

Please could you provide a link to some peer-reviewed research of his which shows why it is toxic in the doses suggested? If not, then regardless of his credentials, it is the same as just creating a blog post and filling it with the facts of your choosing.

That goes for anyone - provide a link to peer-reviewed research which shows that these fluoride levels are in any way detrimental to health and I will reconsider. Until then, it's all a bit tinfoil hat and not backed up by any epidemiology in nations which already have these levels and higher of fluoride treated water.

wr0ng1 wrote:
"1. The general global trend is to avoid or stop water fluoridation schemes. Why do you go against this trend by suggesting fluoridation is 'completely harmless' ?"

This is a logical fallacy called appeal to the majority. It would be like saying (for example) there are more muslims than christians, therefore islam is correct (I don't know that there are, it's just an example).

The research shows that the concentration of fluoride in drinking water and the proposed slight increase are non-toxic and have no observable side-effects. There ARE observable effects from fluoride at far higher doses (orders of magnitude higher), but the same goes for vitamin D, table salt, selenium - a variety of things.

"2. Water fluoridation involves treating water using fluoride sourced from industrial waste that is known to include small quantities of known poisons, such as arsenic. Are you saying now that arsenic is 'completely harmless' ?"

Please provide some kind of evidence that this is the case and I will certainly take a look. If this is indeed the case, then I can not imagine it will pass. I myself have to pass research techniques through ethical and safety screening and believe me when I say that no one wants accidental poisoning to potentially come back on them.

"3. Fluoride is only effective when applied topically - I.e. when applied directly to the tooth surface. Hence brushing teeth makes sense, whereas merely drinking fluoridated water is not nearly so effective."

I am pretty sure that teeth reside in the mouth, which, last time I checked, is the best orifice to use for water ingestion. Also, the gums are very blood vessel rich, so it would follow that any systemic dose would also reach the base of the tooth enamel.

"4. I took my information from a scientific
expert on water fluoridation- Dr Paul Connett. Are you aware of him and, if so, what don't you agree with him about fluoridation and why?"

Please could you provide a link to some peer-reviewed research of his which shows why it is toxic in the doses suggested? If not, then regardless of his credentials, it is the same as just creating a blog post and filling it with the facts of your choosing.

That goes for anyone - provide a link to peer-reviewed research which shows that these fluoride levels are in any way detrimental to health and I will reconsider. Until then, it's all a bit tinfoil hat and not backed up by any epidemiology in nations which already have these levels and higher of fluoride treated water.

1. Appeal to majority is used by many political and lobbying organisations. Do you think the fluoridation lobby doesn't use exactly this mechanism for attempting to continue with water fluoridation?

The CAGW (global warming) belief-system depends on this, for example: 'Consensus-led science, the science is in, the debate is over' etc in order to try to convince people that there is a problem. Common sense tells you that this political manipulation of science is not how science should be done, but that is how it currently seems to be being conducted. Many times in history, the majority have been wrong in scientific matters: Copernicus said that the Sun was the centre of our Solar System, and he was ridiculed by the majority, but he was right.

However, regardless of any of this, currently 97% of Europe's water is not fluoridated - see this link for more info:
http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/fluoride-fa
cts.htm

What reasons did some of these European countries cite for not fluoridating water? Let's see:

Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth decay). All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (to improve the water's quality and safety - which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation. For instance:

-In Germany, "The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication."
-In Belgium, it is "the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services."
-In Luxembourg, "In our views, drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way."

Apologies for bad grammar in quotes above - I think they were translated badly by someone or other :)

2. To read-up on the industrial waste nature of chemicals used in water-fluoridation (hexafluorosilicic acid), see:
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Hexafluoros
ilicic_acid
http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/f-testing.h
tm
http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/pesticides/
fluorosilicates.nih.
2001.pdf

3. By your answer, you are obviously unaware that fluoride is most effective when applied topically, and not systemically. Here's some more info to support this:
http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/health/teet
h/caries/topical-sys
temic.aspx

4. I'm unaware of any peer-reviewed research of Paul Connett, PhD, but I didn't do an exhaustive search. However, on this subject, public confidence and trust in 'peer-reviewed science', has unfortunately taken a severe knock in the aftermath of Climategate, where we have seen evidence of the core team (The Team: Mann, Jones etc) of ideologically-driven 'scientists' turn 'peer-review' into 'pal-review'. Google is your friend if you are unaware of this.

And, regardless of any 'peer-reviewed' scientific paper claiming safety of water fluoridation, it doesn't answer the questions of ethics of forcing medication upon people against their wishes, and also the big point often conveniently forgotten by fluoridation advocates, and that is the accumulated dosage, not just the simple 1ppm concentration level quoted. If you drink more water (hot weather), you ingest more fluoride, increasing your accumulated dosage, even though the concentration remains at 1ppm of water drunk. At what level does the accumulated dosage become dangerous? Can it be proven? And would the water companies be willing to back this up with a robust policy that allows class-action lawsuits by the public if their 'peer-reviewed' science later proves to be wrong? You bet not.

“1. Appeal to majority is used by many political and lobbying organisations. Do you think the fluoridation lobby doesn't use exactly this mechanism for attempting to continue with water fluoridation?”

Doesn’t matter – it is a logical fallacy, hence is not useful to determine the truth of a situation. More “Likes” doesn’t = truth.

“The CAGW (global warming) belief-system depends on this, for example: 'Consensus-led science, the science is in, the debate is over' etc in order to try to convince people that there is a problem.”

Yes, the scientific consensus is evidence based though, not opinion based.

“Common sense tells you that this political manipulation of science is not how science should be done, but that is how it currently seems to be being conducted.”

Common sense is a form of cognitive bias which points a person’s intuitions away from the truth as often as it is useful. This is well studied. It is why people continue to believe things like cold viruses being caused by cold weather, despite evidence showing otherwise.

“Many times in history, the majority have been wrong in scientific matters: Copernicus said that the Sun was the centre of our Solar System, and he was ridiculed by the majority, but he was right.”

Copernicus was ridiculed by a dogmatic majority due to religious beliefs – he was using evidence based on relative positions of observable celestial bodies. Climate scientists are using empirical observations and being ridiculed by a dogmatic public. Your comparison is not valid.

“Apologies for bad grammar in quotes above - I think they were translated badly by someone or other :)”

I agree that part of an issue is one of mandatory medication, which IS a good point of contention. However, most people are referring to fluoride as poisonous (not true at the doses used), causing excessive fluorosis (admittedly, an increase of ~12% of fluorosis in affected areas, but this is offset by 30% reduction in cavities, so cosmetic factors offset), brittle bones (no evidence supports this, even at moderate doses and cancer (no evidence for this at any doses).

“2. To read-up on the industrial waste nature of chemicals used in water-fluoridation (hexafluorosilicic acid), see:
http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Hexafluoros

ilicic_acid
http://www.fluoridea

lert.org/f-testing.h

tm
http://www.fluoridea

lert.org/pesticides/

fluorosilicates.nih.

2001.pdf”

LD50 value of hexafluorosilicic acid is 70 mg/kg (example LD50 for caffeine is 127 mg/kg). The amounts present in water to not apply here. You’ll get closer to poisonous doses of caffeine by driniking in tea than you will for the compound. I asked for evidence about the industrial contaminants (lead, arsenic etc…) being present in toxic amounts in the water.

“3. By your answer, you are obviously unaware that fluoride is most effective when applied topically, and not systemically. Here's some more info to support this:
http://www.fluoridea

lert.org/health/teet

h/caries/topical-sys

temic.aspx”

Firstly, fluoride alert is an anti-fluoridation website, so not the best place to start when providing objectivity.
Secondly, putting water in the mouth is a de facto topical application to teeth unless you are standing with your head back and pouring drinks directly into the throat. So perhaps what is swallowed has less effect after it has been in the mouth, but since it is not toxic, that hardly matters. And since a systematic review has found a difference of between -5% to 65% improvement in dental caries (in case you don’t understand proper statistical methods, that means it tends to show significant improvement in the vast majority), it is clear that the oral delivery of water does have therapeutic benefits.

“4. I'm unaware of any peer-reviewed research of Paul Connett, PhD, but I didn't do an exhaustive search. However, on this subject, public confidence and trust in 'peer-reviewed science', has unfortunately taken a severe knock in the aftermath of Climategate, where we have seen evidence of the core team (The Team: Mann, Jones etc) of ideologically-driven 'scientists' turn 'peer-review' into 'pal-review'. Google is your friend if you are unaware of this.”

This is part of the problem. The public don’t fully understand how scientific peer review works. “Climategate” was called so by the press, despite making no difference to climate science. Of course “Pal review” exists, but it is always found out, as CLimategate was. This does not, unless you are simple, amount to ALL peer review being the same. It is a false syllogism to think so. The reason public policy runs so contrary to science is because the press mis-reports science, the public think they then know better and elected officials follow the mass crowing for whatever it is the most people believe. By definition, only a small minority of people understand these highly complex topics, because they require many years of gruelling education to understand correctly. The public may not believe in man made climate change, but what the majority of people believe hardly has any impact on reality. Before the scientific enlightenment, the majority of people believed that catastrophic weather was a direct consequence of the temperaments of deities, but that didn’t make it true just because most people believed it. I can happily ignore the numerous people who claim that climate change is all a scam because they are all armchair opinions with no basis in logic, evidence or observations. I can read scientific research until the cows come home though, because I have the education to understand it (not having this is not a good excuse, since Scientific American and New Scientist transpose a lot of research for the lay person), and it all objectively points to one thing – human industrial activity is having an unprecedented effect on earth’s climate. I wish it were false, but the evidence points to it not being. For those who don’t get the science behind it (that would be most people I suspect), think about one thing: the energy industry has orders of magnitude more money than governments from funding research. If the weight of evidence went against MMCC, then it would be flooding the research which says otherwise as the energy industry doesn’t want any restriction on energy production. The fact that the consensus is 95% in favour is not because of corruption, it’s just because that’s what the evidence shows. If you can’t grasp this, then I am afraid you are the victim of cognitive dissonance (google is your friend).

“And, regardless of any 'peer-reviewed' scientific paper claiming safety of water fluoridation, it doesn't answer the questions of ethics of forcing medication upon people against their wishes, and also the big point often conveniently forgotten by fluoridation advocates, and that is the accumulated dosage, not just the simple 1ppm concentration level quoted. “

Fluoride does not accumulate in the body, since it is water soluble. I do agree that it should be debated on whether it should be in the water, but not on the grounds of toxicity, since this has been researched already.

“ At what level does the accumulated dosage become dangerous? Can it be proven? “

yes, it is called the LD50 and has been characterised for most chemicals. The levels being used are so far below the toxicity that usage fluctuation will not make a difference. You’d die from hyponatraemia before you’d feel any effects from fluoride toxicity at those levels. Scientists aren’t stupid you know, they take these things into account.

One thing that bothers me about this too is how people are ignoring all of the ACTUAL toxic substances they are forced to ingest on a daily basis. For example, 4-nitrobenzanthrone – the most carcinogenic compound ever detected (as per the Ames test) is a chemical which is present in diesel emissions. We all breathe this in on a daily basis at levels which are genuinely carcinogenic. It is a molecule which can cross the placenta too, so it constinually raises the risks of miscarriage and birth defects, but we accept this, because no matter what – car exhaust fumes are ok. So we get up in arms about miniscule quantities of a relatively inoccuous compound going in the water to prevent cavities, but are ok with the multitude of highly carcinogenic particulates we are forced to breathe in all day from car fumes?

Funny old world.

@wr0ng1:

Blunt instrument:

So, for a minority of children whose parents don't teach them to clean their teeth, you advocate adding a prescription drug to everyone's water supply?

And what if studies showed that a proportion of people have a serious vitamin D deficiency - would you also advocate adding vitamin D to everyone's water supply? If not, why not, if you believe that it makes sense for teeth? Vitamin D deficiency was one example, but I could have used other examples.

Fluoride in drinking water is an inappropriate method of delivery, as you cannot control the total dosage received accurately (other forms of fluoride are also ingested: toothpaste, food pesticides etc).

==============

Consensus / evidence etc:

> Yes, the scientific consensus is evidence based though, not opinion based.

Models are not evidence, and it is only these flawed models that predict doom and gloom. Evidence shows no warming in the last 10 years, despite continuing CO2 rises. Any science that tells us that "more CO2=more warming" is clearly garbage when the predicted outcome fails to arise.

As a key climate scientist (Kevin Trenberth) said:
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
See: http://foia2011.org/
index.php?id=198

> The public may not believe in man made climate change, but what the majority of people believe hardly has any impact on reality.

The reality is that there has been no warming for the last 10 year or so. That is easy to understand isn't it? Luckily for the public.

==============

Common sense:

> Common sense is a form of cognitive bias which… blah blah blah...

In order not to upset you, let me omit the words 'common sense', so I shall rephrase it for you:

The CAGW (global warming) belief-system depends on this, for example: 'Consensus-led science, the science is in, the debate is over' etc in order to try to convince people that there is a problem. Political manipulation of science is not how science should be done, but that is how it currently seems to be being conducted (in climate science).

==============

Topical vs Systemic:

You seemed to suggest that merely drinking water was equivalent to topical application - some joke about teeth being in the mouth...

Please take a look at the following, and tell me which bit of it is wrong, in your opinion:
http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/health/teet
h/caries/topical-sys
temic.aspx

There you will no doubt find people, more qualified in this matter than yourself, talking about this subject.

==============

Accumulation:

What I mean here was not 'accumulation' as in long-term accumulation. What I meant here was the total amount ingested, as in on a daily basis. Thus one drinks water, so this is one source of fluoride if it is fluoridated.

Another source might be the water you use to cook your vegetables - these will absorb the fluoridated water, adding to the amount ingested.

Also, vegetables and fruit that you eat will almost certainly contain some amounts of pesticides - another source of fluoride chemicals.

Also, having a shower with fluoridated water, apparently adds to your fluoride intake.

As you can see here, the water one drinks daily, is only one of many sources of fluoride.

==============

Fluoridation accidents:

Many fluoridation accidents have occurred over time, and some of them have had serious consequences to the victims' health. Some people have even died (dialysis patients). This possibility for water fluoridation accidents, including overdoses, is often forgotten. See below.

http://www.actionpa.
org/fluoride/chemica
ls/accidents-us.html (look in the 'Medium column for 'Drinking Water')

http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/health/acci
dents/fluoridation.h
tml

http://www.fluoridea
lert.org/health/acci
dents/

==============

People with health problems:

Some people with various illnesses are more at risk from drinking fluoridated water. For example those with kidney problems.

How do you suggest these people avoid the toxicity (for them, that is, with compromised health) of drinking fluoridated water? I don't accept an answer of 'just tell them to drink bottled water'.

==============

I agree with you that other pollutants are conveniently ignored, like you state in your example about diesel fuel. But that's another story, and not an excuse to allow another pollutant.